America played the key role in German defeat in World War I

Oct 2013
14,071
Europix
Yes because it was those damn British pirates that shot Franz Ferdinand , and the British that made Germany violate Belgian neutrality.
Not to forget: it was that bloody Belgian King (a German!) that blackmailed the damn British pirates to make them force Germany to violate Belgium...
 

Sam-Nary

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
6,770
At present SD, USA
I seriously doubt the Allies could have imposed their punitive peace and starvation blockade without American help.
Britain imposed the blockade in 1914, the year the war began, and German and Austria would begin to see deaths from starvation begin in the winter of 1916, before the US declared war. This situation for Germany was difficult and was part of the reason they decided to go into unrestricted submarine warfare... to counteract the affect of the Allied blockade, which WAS working. In 1915, the Germans backed out, as the civilian leadership didn't want to risk war with America and let the blockade continue uninterrupted. In late 1916, as the full effect of the blockade began to be felt in Germany, Hindenburg and Ludendorff gambled that unrestricted submarine warfare would starve Britain out before America could come in... at least in force, anyway.

In this, while the blockade may have helped hasten America's entry into the war, based on Germany's reaction to it, that does not mean that the blockade was a failure prior to America's entry. The Germans were desperate and acted in desperation... which is more a sign that the blockade was working as intended, even before America's entry. And it would also mean that even if America wasn't provoked, the blockade would continue to work as intended. It might take longer... but it would still work.

Without the American promise of help they would have sued for peace sooner.
The only member of the Allies/Entente that the Germans "defeated" was Russia, and that was more due playing to Russia's internal divisions than anything else. Once the First Battle of the Marne ended in an Allied (though primarily French) victory in 1914, the Western Front was largely pretty static, and despite the losses taken in 1916 at Verdun and on the Somme, Germany suffered heavy losses there too, and had to endure the mud at Ypres as much as the British did... and all while losing men they couldn't easily replace. The Germans would come close to Paris in 1918... but operated under a plan that took no real logistical or strategic account of the overall position. And in this, one cannot say that the Germans would suddenly become better strategists without the Americans there.

If the English weren't all pirates with delusions of grandeur...
Hey come on, everyone loves British pirates...



...the whole thing could have been avoided.
It also might have been avoided had Germany not blindly supported Austria. It might not have happened had Austria accepted the Serb reply to its ultimatum, which Wilhelm II considered a victory for Austria. It might not have happened had Germany decided it didn't need more battleships than Britain.

One may place a great deal of blame for WWI on Britain, France, Russia, and Serbia for the war... but it still takes two to tango, and the first armies and military forces to cross borders were German or Austrian.
 
Likes: redcoat
Nov 2018
105
Idaho
I think Russia is most to blame, for reasons John Mosier put forward in one of books. But I also don't actually care, since I think politician and soldier should be regarded capital crimes and not legitimate occupations. The only good thing WW1 did was that it killed a lot of them.
 
Oct 2013
14,071
Europix
I think Russia is most to blame, for reasons John Mosier put forward in one of books. But I also don't actually care, since I think politician and soldier should be regarded capital crimes and not legitimate occupations. The only good thing WW1 did was that it killed a lot of them.
That's so true!

Some, how many? ... zero politicians killed?
Some, how many millions soldier killed?

Wait a bit, weren't soldiers conscripted?

Meaning, people like You and me, forced by the law to become soldiers, go and die, so that someone 100 years later can freely say that "only good thing WW1 did was that it killed a lot of them".

Yap
 

Sam-Nary

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
6,770
At present SD, USA
I think Russia is most to blame, for reasons John Mosier put forward in one of books.
There are at least two things wrong with this...

One: John Mosier is not to be trusted as an historian, unless you can find some collaboration with regards to his end point... or if the line in question is thoroughly explained. For with his book on the Battle(s) of Verdun, he is the king of random quote arguments. He posts various quotes that support his conclusion and then doesn't post any contextual information for the quote. Now, if he were defending the previously established histories of World War I, that would be fine, as most of the context would be understood, but that ISN'T Mosier's intention. Mosier is a revisionist with regard to WWI, and while he may have some specific points he can make with regard to casualties, motivations, and circumstances, the fact that he's trying to change people's understanding of the war, he needs to be able to explain the event or the quote used to support his argument, which Mosier generally makes little to no effort to do. He provides a random quote and then leaves it. That doesn't explain anything that would prove his claim correct. This isn't to say that "revisionism" is bad, as new information and new interpretations is always welcome, but one could say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... which Mosier's random quotes do not provide.

Two: While I'm sure this reference to Russia being at fault is in reference to Russian mobilization during the July Crisis of 1914, it should be remembered that while the Russian Army remained in Russia, it wasn't actually starting anything. An army can be mobilized and demobilized without it automatically meaning war. It could be a prelude to war, and Germany would in turn have every right to mobilize in its own defense, but the mobilization by itself is not war. War does not begin until armies cross borders, which was done by Austria and Germany...

If the reference is to the position the Germans were in that lead to the development of the Schlieffen Plan, keep in mind that military planning can and should include many possible options. The Germans didn't HAVE to adopt the Schlieffen Plan. In fact, they could have gone onto the defensive in the West, let the French bash their heads in against the forts around Metz while the Germans move east and deal with the Russians, which is ultimately what was done after the Schlieffen Plan failed. In this, Russia's existence is NOT responsible for the German decision to go through Belgium and both Russia and Germany were perfectly free to choose their own allies. It is not Russia's fault that Germany chose Austria over Russia.

And if this is in reference to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, keep in mind that the links between Princip and Serbia are tenuous and has lead to a host of debates over how much Serbia knew and whether or not the assassination was justified by the Serbian government. And given Nicholas II's family history with regard to regicide, his grandfather Alexander II, was assassinated, I'd find it unlikely that Russia would have actively supported the assassination plot, regardless of who generated it. In fact when the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was first reported, Nicholas was actually supportive of Austria, not Serbia.

But I also don't actually care, since I think politician and soldier should be regarded capital crimes and not legitimate occupations. The only good thing WW1 did was that it killed a lot of them.
This is sick. One does not justify a war in the claim that it killed people. The deaths in war are tragic, particularly with WWI as there was much that could have been done to prevent the deaths in that war... but it wasn't done.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,280
Spain
There are at least two things wrong with this...


And if this is in reference to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, keep in mind that the links between Princip and Serbia are tenuous and has lead to a host of debates over how much Serbia knew and whether or not the assassination was justified by the Serbian government. And given Nicholas II's family history with regard to regicide, his grandfather Alexander II, was assassinated, I'd find it unlikely that Russia would have actively supported the assassination plot, regardless of who generated it. In fact when the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was first reported, Nicholas was actually supportive of Austria, not Serbia.



This is sick. One does not justify a war in the claim that it killed people. The deaths in war are tragic, particularly with WWI as there was much that could have been done to prevent the deaths in that war... but it wasn't done.
The Relation between Princip and SErvia are very easy to find... and it was found out from the first moment... the terrorist group came from Serbia... with Serbian guns and Serbian trained... about Russia´s support... it is not necessary the Czar´s support.. and yes... the Russian Panslavist politician encouraged, supported and protected the Serbian terrorists. Only it is necessary to watch the Nikolas Hartwig´s attitude from the Russian Embassy in Beograd or the Russian military attache in Beograd, Viktor Artamonov and Apis...

I am going to say who didn´t take part in the outrage.. nor Germany, nor Austria- Hungary, nor France, nor UK, nor Montenegro nor Italy... but to say Russia or Servia were "innocent" and Serbia had not linked to the outrage.. it is a ilussion.... The guns, the pistols, the bombs.. didn´t come from Budapest... from Stockholm, from Tokyo or from Santa Fé de Bogotá.... Do you know from what kind of military arsenal the guns, bombs, hand-granades came from? and the money?

Yes, they didn´t come from Brisbane...
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,251
I think Russia is most to blame, for reasons John Mosier put forward in one of books. But I also don't actually care, since I think politician and soldier should be regarded capital crimes and not legitimate occupations. The only good thing WW1 did was that it killed a lot of them.
The "problem" with Russia is that the Germans convinced themselves they would be able to deter them. Which was because the Germans had successfully done so a couple of times in recent memory already. The problem is the glitch between the German leadership deciding for themselves that the Russian clearly were a craven lot, to have let themselves be deterred already, and so they would behave according to character and be deterred again. While the Russians smarted at the realization that they had already been deterred before, and allowing themselves to be so again would confirm the German opinion of them, and for the world to see. And they would/could not accept

And that wasn't just about pride. In the kind of Big Fish Eat Small Fish international politics of empires and nation states at the time, an empire unable to stick up for itself long and consistently enough, fx by being seen intimidated repeatedly, would sooner or later be in big trouble and only downwards to go. None of that was rocket science. The Germans however missed the problem of the threshold for far the Russians felt they needed to go was constantly being upped. And they got it badly wrong for underestimating the Russians. For the Russian government the optics of being seen to be forced to back down again were such that war was better. Which is also part of the problem that all the major powers while they feared defeat in the large war that had been brewing for some time, none of them really feared the fighting of it. That was all fine.
 
Dec 2011
4,633
Iowa USA
The Relation between Princip and SErvia are very easy to find... and it was found out from the first moment... the terrorist group came from Serbia... with Serbian guns and Serbian trained... about Russia´s support... it is not necessary the Czar´s support.. and yes... the Russian Panslavist politician encouraged, supported and protected the Serbian terrorists. Only it is necessary to watch the Nikolas Hartwig´s attitude from the Russian Embassy in Beograd or the Russian military attache in Beograd, Viktor Artamonov and Apis...

I am going to say who didn´t take part in the outrage.. nor Germany, nor Austria- Hungary, nor France, nor UK, nor Montenegro nor Italy... but to say Russia or Servia were "innocent" and Serbia had not linked to the outrage.. it is a ilussion.... The guns, the pistols, the bombs.. didn´t come from Budapest... from Stockholm, from Tokyo or from Santa Fé de Bogotá.... Do you know from what kind of military arsenal the guns, bombs, hand-granades came from? and the money?

Yes, they didn´t come from Brisbane...
"I am going to say who didn´t take part in the outrage.. nor Germany, nor Austria- Hungary, nor France, nor UK, nor Montenegro nor Italy"

Perhaps it was an Italian that murdered the even more tragic (surviving Rudolph) Empress Elizabeth, but besides that minor inconsistency, I strongly doubt that the Black Hand (not an actual translation of the group's name) in Serbia allowed Hartwig any advance information. So very, very many "what ifs" during July, however, I think it is a mistake to make Hartwig into a more significant personality in the story than he was.
 

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
2,691
Republika Srpska
As I have said probably a billion times by now, the Black Hand and the Serbian government were enemies, there was no way the Serbian government would help the Black Hand. The only reason Apis and co. turned their attention to Bosnia was their declining influence in Serbia itself.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,280
Spain
As I have said probably a billion times by now, the Black Hand and the Serbian government were enemies, there was no way the Serbian government would help the Black Hand. The only reason Apis and co. turned their attention to Bosnia was their declining influence in Serbia itself.
Not enemy at all.. not in 1914.. when Apis, the chief of the Black Hand.. was at the moment the Serbian IS chief...or Pasicht feared Apis... or he was his "friend" or his "chief".
 

Similar History Discussions